Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2606.09613

AgentServeSim: Serving-System Simulation and Policy Search for LLM Agent Programs

Abstract

Large language model agents execute programs comprising multiple model turns interleaved with external tool calls. Their job completion time depends on how the serving system retains KV state across tool gaps, routes successor turns, and schedules competing programs. Most existing serving simulators operate on request streams in which arrivals are externally supplied and KV state follows request- or cache-scoped semantics. They therefore cannot jointly represent the cross-turn state and policy-dependent successor releases needed to evaluate counterfactual agent-serving trajectories. We present AgentServeSim, a simulator whose unit of execution is the agent program. A Program Control Block maintains cross-turn state, while a Program Orchestrator causally releases successor turns from simulated predecessor completions. A Retention Plane controls KV state across tool gaps, and a Dispatch Plane determines where and when each ready turn executes. We validate AgentServeSim against real vLLM deployments in 20 paired simulator-real cells spanning two GPU platforms, Llama-3.1-8B and Llama-3.1-70B, coding and function-calling agents, and five arrival rates. Mean JCT error remains within 5.5% on B200 and 5.2% in the saturated RTX PRO 6000 regime. Finally, we propose LLM-driven automated agent-serving policy search using AgentServeSim as a CPU-based fitness evaluator. The resulting policies improve mean JCT over hand-written seed policies by 0.5% for KV retention and 2.8% for scheduling.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Rakibul Hasan Rajib, Mengxin Zheng, Qian Lou. 2026-09-05. AgentServeSim: Serving-System Simulation and Policy Search for LLM Agent Programs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09613

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CyrillicQA: The Influence of Phonetically Encoded Secret Language on LLM Performance

Due to the selection of their training data, large language models (LLMs) perform best on standard-language inputs from languages using the Latin alphabet with large speaker populations, while disadvantaging other language varieties. Nevertheless, they can also be a versatile tool for preserving precisely such endangered languages. But do they also possess the necessary creativity and capacity for abstraction to decode phonetically encoded language the same way humans do?

cs.CL

Good Pretraining, Bad SFT: Checkpoint Quality Across the Training Stack

Language-model checkpoints are commonly selected by pretraining loss or benchmark scores, assuming that the highest-scoring checkpoint will remain the best starting point for subsequent training. We show that this assumption can fail in a full 30B mixture-of-experts training pipeline. The checkpoints that perform better after the full downstream training stack also have higher solution density, i.e., retain downstream performance under local weight perturbations.

cs.AI

When Robots Mishear Us: Mapping the Safety Risks of Voice-Controlled Embodied AI

We investigate whether automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors in user input can lead to unsafe outputs from Embodied AI (EAI) models. We find that ASR errors can lead to harmful instructions being accepted and executed by EAI models, thereby reducing safety. We simulate ASR errors and combine them with existing safety benchmarks (SafeAgentBench and POEX) to evaluate how different errors affect embodied AI safety. We find that some of them preserve semantic structure but increase harmful ambiguity, while others weaken the model refusal behaviour and allow unsafe plans to be generated and executed. We show that in some cases automatic correction of ASR errors can reduce the risk, but this is not always effective. Overall, we show that ASR errors lead to significant safety risks for embodied AI.

cs.AI